On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote: > Am 12.05.2012 15:08, schrieb Blue Swirl: >> On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote: >>> Am 12.05.2012 14:32, schrieb Blue Swirl: >>>> On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote: >>>>> Am 12.05.2012 11:15, schrieb Artyom Tarasenko: >>>>>> Implement registers for clearing OBIO and PCI interrupts >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Artyom Tarasenko <atar4q...@gmail.com> >>>>> >>>>> Implementing new registers is a feature, not a 1.1 bugfix... >>>>> Many of us would like to get patches committed and have to wait. >>>> >>>> Those 12 trivial lines in Sparc64 specific code won't destabilize >>>> anything. Two wrongs do not make one right, but several non-bug fix >>>> patches have been committed since start of hard freeze. Including >>>> yours. >>> >>> Which do you mean? You have not applied nor reviewed my pending sparc >>> patches (and I don't expect you to apply them). I've only supplied >>> bugfix and cleanup patches for 1.1 that I'm aware of. >> >> For example >> f5df5baf11a32ae6a669ac945625d1c3e4deb76d cpu: Update documentation and >> comment > > That one was truely a bug fix. :) > >> aabfd88d5e1ec0878aa70076c3de1859614671f4 configure: Reindent VirtFS check > > This was a prerequisite for a bug fix that required adding code with > proper indentation. > >> Both are nice, trivial patches, most certainly they don't implement >> any registers and the release will be better with those included, but >> they are not bug fixes. > > Right, they are cleanups, see above. They do not add random new code. > They might remove dead code. But if the new criteria is "trivial lines > that don't destabilize anything" then I have a 74-patch series for you > to commit on the list (which I'd rather not, respecting the Freeze). > > Artyom apparently didn't understand that 1.1 equals master, judging from > $subject, so he is likely unaware of our release process.
That's true. I thought there is already a branch for 1.1. But, as you see from the subject, I'd still insist on taking them into 1.1. > Just saying, the same standards should apply to everyone, and that would > include qemu-ga as well. I think our standards are not the part of a cargo cult. ;-) They are there to improve the quality of the final product. In this particular case taking the patch does improve the final quality. As you mentioned in another thread, qemu-system-sparc64 was not very usable until now. In qemu-1.1 it will be. > I do welcome Artyom's sparc64 progress btw. :-) Thanks :-) > > Andreas > > -- > SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany > GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg -- Regards, Artyom Tarasenko solaris/sparc under qemu blog: http://tyom.blogspot.com/search/label/qemu
